PG&E wins a big one!
By Bruce B. Brugmann
The email came in to me from a City Hall source during Tuesday's meeting of the Board of Supervisors.
"Are you hearing the same thing I am about Daly possibly approving Sklar's appointment? I can't get my head around why he would do that, if the rumor is true."
I sent a note back saying that our understanding at the Guardian was that there were seven solid votes against the mayor's nomination of Richard Sklar and Ryan Brooks for reappointment to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, a longtime PG&E bastion in City Hall. The swing vote, I said, was Sup. Gerardo Sandoval, but he appeared to be resisting the massive pressure on him to vote for Sklar.
My source was right. Sup. Chris Daly did the ignominious thing and voted for Sklar and gave him the vote he needed to stay on the PUC, on a 7-4 vote. (It takes eight votes to reject a mayoral nomination.) Daly in the process did the following: (a) gave PG&E a major victory, (b) gave the mayor a major victory, (c) allowed Newsom's campaign manager and key strategist, Eric Jaye, with PG&E as a major client, to claim a major victory, (d) helped assure the firing of PUC General Manager Susan Leal (Newsom had fired her earlier because, in the opinion of the Guardian and other public power supporters, she was making some baby steps toward public power), (e) helped assure that the PUC would most likely be a safe haven for PG&E for yet another few years.
And Daly did it without tipping his hand in advance and letting his public power and other supporters know what he was doing. Nor did he explain his vote at the meeting. Nor was he available after the vote to explain.
What happened? "He's painfully qualified to serve on such a commission," Newsom told Cecilia Vega, the Chronicle's City Hall reporter, for her excellent story today. Sarah Phelan, the
Guardian reporter covering the meeting, tried in vain to get a comment from Daly and even went to his office after the meeting. No luck.
But Daly did post a comment on Steven T. Jones' blog story in which Jones reported that Daly "flipped his vote" on Sklar and described it as a "surprising and inexplicable move." Jones posted the item at 3:43 p.m. Tuesday.
Daly posted his comment 57 minutes later at 4:40 p.m.,. He wrote that he "never 'flipped' my vote on Sklar, because I never committed to vote against Sklar. I also didn't cut a deal with any Sklar supporters--I quickly terminated the only call I received from a Skar supporter.
"Not that it wasn't a very difficult vote, especially considering the company I had on the vote at the Board.
"I am strongly against the removal of Leal and the associated $400,000 payout and have expressed my concerns about the Mayor's meddling in Commission affairs. When I brought this up, Skar admitted to me that he did not handle this well. But on other subjects, Sklar has shown independence from Newsom--most notably on the issue of the peaker plants and the Charter Amendment. I also believe Sklar when he says he's not against public power.
"So here I am looking at a Commissioner that is clearly qualified and has shown some independence, but with whom I've disagreed on a number of issues. I just don't think that rises to the level of meriting a rejection. That also doesn't rise to the level of deserving an appointment if I was the appointing authority."
C'mon, Chris. This is pretty lame stuff for a guy who likes to kick ass all around City Hall and the Hetch Hetchy watershed. You've been out there on a host of good issues over a long period of time, including public power and kicking PG&E out of City Hall. So what happened? (I'm sending this blog over to your office to give you a chance to answer.)
And so Daly joined the emerging PG&E Three on his vote: Sups. Michela Alioto-Pier, Sean Elsbernd, and Carmen Chu. And he rejected seven solid votes for public power and against PG&E by supervisors who deserve gold stars in their lapels: Sups. Aaron Peskin (who led the charge), Ross Mirkarimi (the cca and public power generalissimo), Tom Ammiano and Jake McGoldrick (all good on the issue), Sophie Maxwell and Bevan Dufty (who came through nicely), and Sandoval, who did the right thing while having a lot to lose because he will be running for judge. He was told during the intense lobbying campaign, sometimes bluntly, sometimes obliquely, that he would get lots of support and money if he went for Sklar and lots of pain and punishment if he went against Sklar. Good going, Gerardo.
And Sklar? Well, he's never shown us the slightest interest in pushing public power and taking on PG&E during his long PUC tenure and he wasn't reappointed by the Mayor/Jaye/PG&E to suddenly turn state's evidence on PG&E. If he were the statesman his supporters were portraying him to be, he would have turned down the appointment and made some helpful comments. Instead, he took the occasion, in his appearance before the board, to trash Leal and say, according to the Chronicle, "'I supported Susan for mayor in 2003. She's my friend,"" he said. ""But this is not the job for her.'"
The Chronicle neatly pointed out that, during the meeting, Sklar "declined to offer specifics about why he thinks Leal should go." Note the Newsom/Sklar spending habits: If the board votes to terminate Leal's contract next week, she stands to collect a severance package of more than $400,000.
The Chronicle also pointed out that Sklar had mounted a "vigorous campaign to keep his post on the commission by meeting with supervisors beforehand." The story also said that Sklar had rounded up support from a batch of high profile politicians: former mayor Art Agnos and Willie Brown (both of whom operated as PG&E aliles during their reigns), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (a PG&E ally who negotiated the sellout Turlock/Modesto power contract that cost the city millions) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a PG&E ally who led the fight to help PG&E privatize the Presidio and turn the public power base over to PG&E's private power. Like Sklar, none of them have taken on PG&E on much of anything ever.
Let's have a show of hands on this one: how quickly will Sklar, with PG&E support and allies like these, put even a tiny pebble in the path of the PG&E steamroller on the PUC? I'll keep you posted. B3
Click here for Steven T. Jones' blog, Daly's comment, and Kimo Crossman's comments.
Read Kimo Crossman and Chris Daly's full blog comments after the jump.
Chris Daly:
I would disagree that this was a good day for Newsom at the Board. A rejection by the Board of any appointment is very significant, and the rejection of Ryan Brooks is a really big deal.
In 7 years, I have voted against more Mayoral appointments at the Board than any other Supervisor (and perhaps in the modern history of San Francisco) and continued that trend by opposing 3 of the 5 appointments on today's calendar. With that said, I never "flipped" my vote on Sklar, because I never committed to vote against Sklar. I also didn't cut a deal with any Sklar supporters -- I quickly terminated the only call I received from a Sklar supporter. (Sklar did write to me about his support for Maxwell's Charter Amendment to provide greater checks and balances to the PUC.)
Not that it wasn't a very difficult vote, especially considering the company I had on the vote at the Board.
I am strongly against the removal of Leal and the associated $400,000 payout and have expressed my concerns about the Mayor's meddling in Commission affairs. When I brought this up, Sklar admitted to me that he did not handle this well. But on other subjects, Sklar has shown independence from Newsom -- most notably on the issue of the peaker plants and the Charter Amendment. I also believe Commissioner Sklar when he says he's not against public power.
So, here I am looking at a Commissioner that is clearly qualified and has shown some independence, but with whom I've disagreed on a number issues. I just don't think that rises to the level of meriting a rejection. That also doesn't rise to the level of deserving an appointment if I was the appointing authority.
I plan to publicly explain my vote at Roll Call for introductions which is appropriate pursuant to Board rules.
Posted by Chris Daly | February 12, 2008 04:40 PM
kimo crossman:
Dear Supervisors & Commissioners
I wish to remind you as you consider the reappointment of Richard Sklar of the ginormous failure and embarassing Municipal Wi-Fi initiative which was forcefully advocated for by Mr. Sklar in the face of overwhelming evidence that it would crash and burn. Many early public records show his intimate involvment in the deal.
As we now know, I and other advocates, ACLU, EFF and others showed this solution, (a franchinse in disguise), was privacy invading, didn't work indoors, didn't solve the digital divide and had a business model that was an utter fantasy. Nationwide, Muni Wi-Fi initiatives continue to fail and the current news is that it is very likely that EarthLink will pull out of the Philadelphia solution only 75% complete. In the aftermath, let's not forget, EarthLink fired 50% of their staff - 900 people, - 100 positions in San Francisco. The Mayor's office, DTIS and PUC spend untold amounts of staff time and additional time on Controller reports, Legislative Analyst reports, 10+ public hearings and internal and external legal resources on an initiative that lasted over two years - with ultimately nothing to show for it.
For Mr. Sklar to stick his head in the sand and like a bull in a china shop bulldoze a soluiton - even advocating for passage of the pole agreement by SFPUC, I feel is a serious mark against him and his ability to research and understand complex issues.
San Francisco and it's citizens deserver much better, Please do not reappoint this man.
Posted by kimo crossman | February 12, 2008 08:51 PM
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (1)
A few things, Bruce.
First let me address the indisputable factual errors in your post.
First, it is untrue that I did not "tip my hand" on Sklar. About a week ago I told Peskin (who seemed to be doing the vote counting) that I was against Brooks and undecided on Sklar. Immediately following my Tuesday morning meeting with Sklar, when I decided not to vote to reject, I went to Peskin's office and informed him of my position.
Second, it is untrue that I did not explain my vote at the meeting. I explained my vote on the PUC Commission appointments pursuant to 4.17 of the Board of Supervisors Rules of Order at Roll Call for Introductions.
Third, it is untrue that I was unavailable after the vote to explain it. I even stepped out of the Board Chambers to make comments to several reporters including Cecilia Vega of the Chronicle. Sarah Phelan has my cell number, but didn't call me until Thursday at 3pm on an unrelated subject.
Fourth, the Guardian may have believed that I was included in the "7 solid votes" against Sklar, but I was never contacted by any representative from the Guardian about this before the vote.
Now let me take issue with some of your points that I believe to be misguided or incorrect.
Even Peter Ragone couldn't spin that PG&E or the Mayor had a big win on Tuesday, so why are you? You know that appointees almost never get rejected with a super-majority vote, and on Tuesday, PG&E's closest long-time ally on the PUC Commission, Ryan Brooks, was rejected. That is a huge loss for PG&E, even considering Sklar, who seems to be neutral on public power, was not rejected.
As for the Mayor, he was not only rebuked on Brooks, his own appointees Dick Sklar and Sean Elsbernd supported the PUC Charter Amendment to make the Commission more independent! If the measure passes in June, it will require all 5 PUC Commission seats to be reappointed this summer. The Board will be able to reject any of the 5 with a majority vote.
Regarding the PUC as a safe haven for PG&E, you must realize that the Board will have little impact on any new Newsom appointee to the PUC. Commissioner Sklar on the other hand, coming off a 7 to 4 vote at the Board and possibly looking at another Board vote in 6 months time, must pay some attention to the wishes of the Board.
As for Susan Leal, conventional wisdom at City Hall was that she wasn't going to make it regardless of the outcome of Commission appointments. I like Susan and am against her firing and the $400,000 payout, but I don't think Sklar will be the deciding vote. It will likely go down 4-0.
I haven't seen anywhere in the Guardian reports of support for Sklar from the environmental community, an important segment of our progressive coalition. I have heard directly from several environmental leaders their appreciation of Sklar's questioning of the administration and Maxwell on the J Power deal to site fossil fuel burning peaker plants in the Southeast part of San Francisco. It is true that the there were an uncomfortable array of forces in opposition to the peakers -- environmental justice advocates and PG&E. But there was an equally uncomfortable coalition in favor -- the Newsom administration, CPUC, and certain public power advocates. Neighborhood folks and progressive seemed to lean against, and that is where I stood, although I am still unclear on exactly what the Guardian's position was...
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?page=2&entry_id=4844&catid=4&volume_id=317&issue_id=323&volume_num=42&issue_num=05
Let's just say, I think we got the mix right with Community Choice Aggregation, which moves us closer to public power while pushing renewables, and not with the peakers that deliver publicly-owned, polluting power generation.
Anyway, it does seem that this is the issue on which Sklar and Leal butted heads the most. And on this issue, I'm was with Sklar and not Leal.
This does not mean I'm with PG&E. Never have been and never will be. It does mean that I want public power that is as green as possible and that I am not going to compromise my position on environmental justice to curry any political favor -- even here at the Guardian.
In the future, I, as a principled progressive and friend, would appreciate it if my actions, voting record, and political program are addressed in a fair and accurate way in this publication.
Thanks,
Chris
Posted by Chris Daly | February 14, 2008 01:18 AM